1/1/2012

Sorry to keep working this story like a dog’s chew toy, but if the final Des Moines Register poll is accurate, Ron Paul’s campaign may be fizzling sooner rather than later. If so, I may be running out of time to thank him for the gift he has given everyone else in American politics.

What makes professional libertarians apologize and spin for the longtime publisher of a racist, anti-gay, anti-Israel, conspiracy-mongering newsletter, one who still associates with the John Birch Society and neo-Confederates, and panders to 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy mongers? Jamie Kirchick, who did yeoman’s work researching and bringing the newsletters into public view, suggests the fault lies in libertarianism itself:

Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.

But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.

Kirchick likely goes too far, even in that excerpt; earlier, he notes that Paul’s media apologists generally don’t support the newsletters, but avoid them entirely. Even unhinged conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan tiptoed back from his defense of Paul in the face of a reader backlash.

Rather, we should take the professional libertarians at face value. Welch, Crane and their ilk are spinning for Paul because they see his campaign as their best chance at gaining real-world political influence. They are deluding themselves about this; a protracted Paul campaign would set the image of libertarianism back to what it was in the mid-Sixties, because Paul’s campaign is ultimately funded by and founded on an express political strategy of appealing to the worst aspects of human nature. But they truly seem to believe otherwise.

This is a wonderful discovery. For a very long time, a broad slice of libertarians, including many professional libertarians, have cultivated a particular political image. They looked down on those who engaged in grubby, traditional, two-party American politics. They snarked at people for selling out their principles in the service of clinging to political power. Indeed, they tended to focus on Republicans as hypocritical, fair-weather friends of small government and free markets.

Those days are over. At least, the days of professional libertarians walking around with upturned noses without everyone pointing and laughing is over. Any notion that professional libertarianism is solely interested in its principles instead of the grubby business of winning elections is done. The high-minded professional libertarian class has jumped off their pedestals and now wallow in the muck with everyone else, demonstrating they will overlook the hideous flaws of their standard-bearer in return for even the mere hope of more national political influence. And for that gift, if for nothing else, we can thank Ron Paul.

–Karl

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: This is an excellent piece by Karl. I would make one observation: I don’t think it’s fair to say Matt Welch has ignored the newsletters. He does not mention them in the piece linked by Karl, but he has discussed them recently and extensively, as you can see here.

UPDATE BY KARL: I appreciate Pat’s update. I urge people to read the Welch piece he linked, because it shows a man in very deep denial of Paul’s continuing association with nutters.

250 Responses to “A Holiday Gift from Ron Paul”

Ah Ron Paul. He has some good ideas, but he comes across like that cranky old coot of an uncle that the family tries to (and should) hide in the attic when company comes. Little Ronny One Note, to borrow the immortal words of Al Campanis, “lacks the essentials” to be President.

I think Kirchik jumped the shark, there, I think that’s a requirement of his employment there. There’s no reason why certain noxious social and foreign policy views, are tied to somewhat sensible
economicss.

The “professional libertarians” have always reminded me of the apochryphal German motorcyclist that, when confronted with another motorist entering an intersection against a red light, puts his head down and charges straight ahead into the side of the offending vehicle, for, he has the Right-of-Way.

Well, a lot of Libertarians have become libertarians over the years, realizing that there is no effective alternatives to the “grubby” two-party system and that a lot of nose-holding is necessary. One of the reasons the libertarians in the Republican Party accept the large numbers of God-botherers, and why, conversely, the social conservatives accept the libertines in their midst.

Reason can be a bit over-the-top and found the print version tiring long ago, but CATO has done a lot of grubby work itself, such as Kelo, and defending school choice and economic liberty, down in the trenches of endless state and district courts. I’m proud to be a sponsor of CATO and wish more were.

I will also point out that of the groups that compose the modern Republican Party, libertarians are not the only ones that play the holier-than-thou game, or get all bothered if their fair-haired candidate doesn’t get the nod. Some argument that Huckabee voters staying home lost the 2008 election for McCain, who for all his faults would not have put Sotomayor and Kagan on the Court.

We (Paul supporters) aren’t ignoring anything. We’ve known about the newsletters and we’ve accepted Paul’s excuse and apologies for it. I find it funny that you talk of libertarians as being in lockstep just to get their guy into power, and you mention Reason editor Matt Welch. But you don’t mention Reason Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie (also Welch’s co-author) saying Paul still has to answer questions about the newsletters or Reason columnist Shikha Dalmia making the case that Paul needs to name names of those responsible. Oh, and David Harasanyi, who says Paul needs to go away completely.

Meanwhile, Karl and his ilk refuse to see that Paul supporters aren’t voting for his newsletters. We don’t see it as scary that people who don’t trust the govt (like those crazy conspiracy theorists like Alex jones, and yes, I mean crazy, not sarcastic “crazy.”) because we aren’t voting for Alex jones. We don’t care that white power groups love him, because we aren’t voting for a racist. (ever consider that they oppose hate speech legislation, which Paul also opposes? Anyone stop to consider that when the govt makes what you do illegal, you tend to become a single issue voter?)

If you can’t vote for him, don’t vote for him. I don’t even think he can win, but I’ll vote for him. If republicans had half the testicular fortitude that libertarians have, you wouldn’t have ever seen mitt Romney or newt Gingrich as a front runner. But we don’t. We vote for who’s next. That’s how we got both bush’s. That’s how we got stuck with McCain and Dole. And that’s why we’ll lose the easiest election since the dems handed bush a 2nd term.

He may be wrong on why he wants our troops home, why he wants to end foreign aid, or why he wants to legalize drugs. His motivation behind those things may be completely off base and centered in anti-gay joooooo hatred, but he’s right about one thing: we can’t afford it. I don’t give money to aids research, but that doesn’t make me a homophobe or antigay, it means I can’t afford it.

But next time, when accusing someone of lumping people together into groups, you might want to avoid, ya know, lumping people into groups.

Ironically, whether he likes Israel or not, his policy is the best for Israel of all the candidates. If the only issue determining my voting was who was best for Israel, I’d be 100% for Paul. IMO Israel has a moral claim to American aid, but experience has shown that it costs far more than it’s worth; Israel has become addicted to it, and needs to dry out.

Ron Paul’s long history of publishing racist, anti-gay, conspiracy-mongering newsletters

It’s sad that we’ve gone from the extremes of the past, illustrated decades later in various portions of those newsletters, to the extreme of today.

We’ve gone from, say, the matter of Kennedy’s affiliation with Catholicism being a controversy during the 1960 elections, to the symbolism in 2009 of Nidal Hasam and political correctness gone berserk (in the US military, no less) and the ensuing Fort Hood massacre.

We’ve gone from “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” in the late 1960s — a movie about liberals in San Francisco struggling with their daughter wanting to marry a black guy, played by Sidney Poitier — to a widely publicized photo in 2011 of a female military enlistee shown kissing her “wife” in front of the US navy ship the enlistee returned on.

Western society has gotten too secular and leftwing, while the Middle East (eg, Egypt) is becoming too fundamentalist and rightwing. Two opposing dynamics that may very well be grappling with each other for the rest of the 21st century.

The idiosyncrasies of human nature appear to make socio-political extremes far too easy to implement and far too difficult to avoid.

Narciso,
You are mistaken. He says those places aren’t an immediate threat to US. He knows that they all hate Israel, but Israel has shown in the past that she’s able to defend herself. And how is it not recognition of those dangers when he says we should stop giving Israel’s enemies money, too? “how does it help Israel if we give her 2 billion dollars, and then give 12 billion to her enemies?” that’s Ron Paul’s stance.

One thing is for sure, Paul won’t tell Israel where her borders should be when negotiating with the palestinians. Remember that if it comes down to Obama v Paul: one says, “eff those dirty joooooos that I hate dealing with every day, eff them right in the ear!” while the other says, “Israel is a big girl. She can take care of herself.”

That aid was predicated on agreeing to the terms of the Camp David Accords, which included giving Sinai back to the Egyptians (a big mistake IMO).
It is also why we give $3B(?)/yr to Egypt, as a bribe for their initial and continued recognition of the Jewish State.

The MB seems to think that recognition is not something they wish to continue. Will the Arabists in Foggy Bottom have the IF to withhold the check if that happens? I don’t feel confident.

But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy.

– The same could be said for Paul’s stubborn refusal to disavow the content of those newsletters. Driven less from a sense of ideological purity and more by a need to avoid alienating his ideological zealot base of voters.

Ghost – With apologies, yes you are indeed. You may like Paul’s stand on individual issues. Ignore the newsletters if you like. What you cannot ignore is long verbal record of utterances on radio and television over time.

When you put the entire package of Ron Paul together rather than looking at him issue by issue, the man is nuttier than my Aunt Betty’s pecan pie.

Remember that if it comes down to Obama v Paul: one says, “eff those dirty joooooos that I hate dealing with every day, eff them right in the ear!” while the other says, “Israel is a big girl. She can take care of herself.”

– So your argument is that Paul’s stance is best because Obama is more publicly hatey in his dissing of Israel? Wonderful.

Meanwhile, every OTHER Republican candidate is both more respectful to, and more realistic about, the level of support Israel needs from its friends in order to peacefully coexist with its hostile neighbors.

Icy, at least since 08, he’s said, “I don’t write them. I disavow them.” how is that not disavowing them? And how is letting Israel decide what’s best for Israel in any way “hatey?”

Daley, again, not ignoring anything. You say he’s crazy, I say he’s been pretty damn accurate. Especially when it comes to domestic issues. And you can’t have a large military presence without a large government. If you want, send money to Israel. Just like we tell the warren buffets of the world, if you want to pay more, pay more. No one is going to stop you. Ron Paul would make sure your tax dollars aren’t going to anyone over seas.

And who the hell cares if he believes in conspiracy theories? If it means dismantling the progressive machine they’ve built over the last century, then that’s where my vote goes. He’s crazy, but he’s been crazy right for too long.

Daley,
“whether it was Mossad, which a Jewish friend of mine believes, or Islamists matters little.”

Huh. Kinda sounds like he’s saying his Jewish friend thinks that it was Israel, while Ron Paul says, that’s not the point. Like if I said, “whoever caused the housing crisis, whether it was bush, like my republican friend believes, or if it was Clinton matters little,” that’s not me saying “it was bush’s fault!!” that’s me saying, it doesn’t matter.

Excellent post, Karl. Mark also touches on some interesting concepts in #15. Times change, elements of entire societies change, and individual people change as a result of outside influences, challenges encountered and faced, education, and myriad personal experiences and relationships. Who of us has not said or written something in the past that reflected the times but now looks small or unenlightened–if not outright stupid?

I think many people (and I certainly include myself here) have difficulty sometimes figuring out which of the changes of heart, the flip flops and the abject apologies from politicians for wrong-headed past utterances/positions reflect their genuine growth and evolution over time and should be accepted as just part of being human –versus which utterances (no matter how old) are so deeply troubling as to cast a permanent and unrelenting pall over that politician’s character and judgment whether he later disavows the statements or not.

Ron Paul’s “newsletters” should pose no such “dilemma”. They clearly were and are beyond the pale.

how is letting Israel decide what’s best for Israel in any way “hatey?”

– Israel already decides what’s best for Israel. We “let” them do that NOW. Problem is, Ron Paul’s stance isn’t “Israel is a big girl. She can take care of herself.” it’s “If you’re surrounded by sharks you had better learn how to levitate above the water, because we’re hanging onto all of the life preservers.”

Ghost – Personally, I think having a POTUS who believes in every bizarre conspiracy theory that comes down the pike makes a big freaking difference.

Your mileage clearly differs, but of course you are not ignoring anything to pretend that the delusion and paranoia involved in swallowing Ron Paul’s conspiracy theories does not matter in determining suitability for office. Not. At. All.

Yes, I am aware of Mr. Dondero’s revelations; but they have failed to convice me to change my opinion of Mr. Paul.
To the contrary, they have only served to reinforce my rejection of Mr. Paul as a political leader.

You’re looking at motive, I only care about outcome. I don’t give a shit that obama’s heart was in the right place when he signed obamacare. It doesn’t change the outcome. You say his motivations for ending the fed, returning to the gold standard, ending foreign aid, ending wars that aren’t serving America’s interests, and restoring civil liberties lies in conspiracy theories. I’m saying that I’m not voting for where their heart lies, I’m voting for the outcome.

I’m not asking you to vote for him. And I know that a lot of the Paul supporters out there make you want to call all of us crazy. All I’m asking you to do is understand the difference.

OK, so let me see if I understand Ghost correctly. It really doesn’t matter that Ron Paul’s letters were the most racist and absurd things I have ever had the displeasure of receiving (I was in his district at the time), or the fact that Ron Paul is CERTIFIABLE, let’s just ignore his entire history and his associations with other fringe idiots.

Of course, Ghost will probably tell you that Paul’s “philosophy” is based on Austrian ecomonics, but even that is a 1/2 truth. If Hayak is the gold standard for the Austrians, it is NOT Hayak that Paul follows. He follows the convoluted thinking of Murry Rothbard, and of course, Paul’s life long friend, Lew Rockwell.

Now, if anyone wants to know just how radical Paul is, I suggest they spend just 10 minutes a day for a month reading the tripe that Lew Rockwell puts on his own website. And not to let Rockwell, and Rochbard, take all the glory for Paul’s insanity, Ron Paul is a regular on the Alex Jones show whose only claim to fame is the 9-11 truther movement.

After years of denying that he wrote the racist, vile commments that appeared in his own newsletters, Paul is now saying to the effect “Well, I wrote some of the stuff, just not the bad stuff.” Um-hum…. and just who did write all that bigotry, Dr. Paul? You have failed to say.

To support Ron Paul, you have to ignore a lot of things; his history, his writings, his millions of $$ gained from those letters where the only people who profited from them were Paul, his wife, one of his kids and Lew Rockwell, and his decades long associations with other non-desirables. He takes no blame for getting the recent endorsement from Davaid Duke, but it is Paul’s very words and statements that act as a draw from those kinds of people.

Paul will lose, but to me, that’s not the best news. The best news is that he is going to retire after this term, and stop being an embarrasment to Texas. Next on the list: Sheila Jackson Lee.

I agree that he should out the writer. If he didn’t write them, he should feel no loyalty to whoever tarnished his name. He actually follows the Ludwig Von Mises platform, which is similar to hayeks, but that’s the Austrian economist he’s referring to, not Hayek.

Everything else you have is guilt by association. In reality, you have to ignore his history and his writings to make the assumption that he’s a racist.

As for who endorses him, we aren’t voting for endorsements. If you voted for McCain, were you voting for hank Williams, joe Lieberman, or John hagee? No, you were voting for McCain (or just against Obama).

I don’t care if the monkey in his brain told him to vote against the patriot act or ndaa. I just know those were the right votes, which is more than I can say for the other viable options. He’s crazy, but he’s crazy right.

How about republicans pull their heads out of their asses and truly reduce government and promote the constitution for a change? We already have the democrats as the party of “get the government out of my life, so we can put them square in yours!”

Give me someone better than Paul on domestic and economic issues, and they’ll have my vote. Show me someone more consistent on civil liberties, and I’ll follow them into battle. Oh, we had that in Gary Johnson. Republicans marginalized him, and refused to allow him to debate when he was polling better than huntsman. I’m a registered republican, so you’ve narrowed my field to Ron Paul.

It’s surprising Paul hasn’t distanced himself from Rockwell, let alone repudiating him. At least Obama did that with regard to Rev.Wright when he recognized the media and public were not going to let up and that if he wanted to continue to gain ground in the campaign, he would have to. IIRC, even Rev. Wright confirmed the need for Obama to cut the ties.

Optics matter. Does Paul honestly not see a problem (which, if so, would be an even bigger problem), or is he satisfied with his rationalizations?

Dana, there is a real “flexible yardstick” in play, and I think it comes from some points that Karl made: big “L” libertarians feel “superior” in their approach (they claim that they have not “sold out” for electability).

But as you can see, they “sell out” with the best of them, when it comes to someone whom they viscerally like.

It’s kind of like my Obamaite friends: they excoriate GWB for doing something that is perfectly okay for BHO to do. Or ignore it when BHO is on record (hello, signing statements?) opposing something that he later does.

They hem, they haw…and then it comes back to “Bush did it first/worse.”

Sort of the same dealio here. Paul is clearly nutzoid…and if not an anti-semite and racist, well, certainly xenophobic (did you catch Paul’s comments about the LA Riots?). I keep wondering what his son must be thinking.

There’s too much people could tell about Ron Paul if he tried to blame any other person for what was in the newsletters. The problem is, the truth is he knew more or less what was in them, and he was aiming at a particular audience. And the claim that he said that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight is true, and he was looking for that.

…Mr. Crane of the Cato Institute recalled comparing notes with Mr. Paul in the early 1980s about direct mail solicitations for money. When Mr. Crane said that mailing lists of people with the most extreme views seemed to draw the best response, Mr. Paul responded that he found the same thing with a list of subscribers to the Spotlight, a now-defunct publication founded by the holocaust denier Willis A. Carto.

Mr. Paul said he did not recall that conversation, which was first reported in the libertarian publication Reason, and doubted that he would have known what lists were being used on his behalf. Yet he said he would not have a problem seeking support from such a list.

“I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”

Also:

Mr. Crane, a longtime critic of Mr. Rockwell, called Mr. Paul’s close association with him “one of the more perplexing things I’ve ever come across in my 67 years.” He added: “I wish Ron would condemn these fringe things that float around because of Rockwell. I don’t believe he believes any of that stuff.”

Mr. Paul said in the interview that he did not, but he declined to condemn Mr. Rockwell, saying he did not want to get in the middle of a fight. “I could understand that, but I could also understand the Rothbard group saying, Why don’t you quit talking to Cato?” he said.

Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people,” he said. “I thought, we’re so small, why shouldn’t we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?”

Nonetheless, Mr. Paul’s newsletters veered into language that would most likely appeal to Mr. Duke’s followers, including the suggestion in 1994 that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

He said he did not discuss the content of the newsletters with Mr. Rockwell because readers never complained. “I was pretty careless about what was going in my own newsletter — that was my biggest fault,” he said.

Mr. Rockwell did not respond to interview requests. Carol Moore, a libertarian opponent of his at the time, said he and his allies had “all evolved” and moderated their views since.

Well, yes, he’s not promoting any of that stuff now. It’s not in his interest to do so. I would argue, though, though that some of what he does promote, is just as nutty, if not as nasty.

#35, Ghost, the reason Ron Paul doesn’t “out” the person who wrote those filthy newsletters is because either he, or Lew Rockwell, wrote them. Paul is not going to be honest about it because if Rockwell wrote the letters, it would destroy the 3 decades that Rockwell and Paul have basically been one and the same.

Tell me, was Von Mises alive when Ron Paul developed his “fiscal” philosophy? No, but the logical progression would say that Paul should have followed the philosophy of Hayak (since he claims that it was The Road to Serfdom that played such an influencial part of shaping his opinions. But he lies. It was not Hayak that Paul followed, but Murray Rothbard, who tried to hijack von Mises. And it was Lew Rockwell who has played on that to line his own pockets handsomely. I high recommend you do some research on Rothbard. I doubt you will like what you learn.

Ron Paul recently said during a debate, that the 9-11 hijackers were just “thugs with box cutters.” He also believes that if we withdraw from Muslim lands (even those where we have been invited to have a presence) that the Muslims would just go away and stop trying to kill us. Paul attributes our troubles with radical Muslim in our involvement in Muslim nations. As I have said before, Paul needs to be tied into a chair in Allen West’s office and given a detailed history lesson on Islamic aggression and the reason for it.

Do you think that Osama bin Laden just picked the date of September 11th out of his butt? I also highly recommend you research the meaning of that particular date. Was it Spain’s presence in the Muslim nations that caused the Islamic hordes to start its march across Europe? Too bad Ron Paul doesn’t seem to know much history. Perhaps he could ask the ghost of Charles Martel, or just pay a visit to Allen West.

I would venture a guess you are like most Paul supporters and have never had the displease of really meeting him. I was not that fortunate. I was in Paul’s district and was a district chair for one of his early campaigns. It doesn’t take long, with personal interaction, to learn that Ron Paul is crazy as a sh!t house rat. Everyone I know that once supported him now despises him. When the district lines were redrawn after the census, we lost Congressman Paul to wind up with a far left Democrat, Ruben Hinojosa. How bad must Paul be, and how crazy must he be, that the Republicans in my county were happy to be rid of him and have him replaced with a Democrat?

Ron Paul is who he is, and for you to want to pick and choose the parts of him that you say you support, is pure folly. You cannot ignore his history, his radical associations, his racism and anti-semitism and say “well, that part I don’t like but he is right on some things and that is what I am voting for.”

In 2004, I was a delegate to the Texas GOP convention. Every Texas Republican pol was there, along with those like Carol Keeton Rylander, and they all had “hospitality” rooms at the hotel. The purpose is to network and visit with your representative in basically what are working on platform “meets and greets.” A couple of weeks before the convention, I had cause to call Dr. Paul’s D.C. office to get some information on a bill that I could not seem to find. The aide was great, bent over backwards to help me and so I stopped by Dr. Paul’s hospitality suite to thank him for the information provided to me by his aide and to let him know that the aide had responded to a voter in a professional manner. Dr. Paul informed me, in a rude manner “That is why I pay him. He does that to keep his job.” At that point, he told another aide “Go get me a water.” No please, just barked the order.

First, I informed Dr. Paul that he does not pay that aide, I do, out of my taxes. I also informed him that there was no cause for him to be rude to his staff.

Perhaps you have big “L” libertarian views. But I can tell you who the bulk of Ron Paul supporters are: Birchers, Alex Jones 9-11 truthers, college students that want drugs legalized, those who just know that the government is tapping their phones, reading their emails and black helicopters are hoovering over their hosue AND the totally uninformed. If you want to really be overloaded with conspiracy theories and theorists, just attend ONE von Mises conference.

Ron Paul is not just a radical, he is dangerous. He obfuscates on his true beliefs and lies to you, and others people like you, to make them think he is just a friendly old uncle who wants to promote the freedom movement. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Retire,
Thanks for the personal insight. I actually kinda already had the notion that he wasn’t a friendly person, so your story backs up my gut.

Like I said before, though. It’s the issues and outcomes I’m voting for. So far, he’s the only candidate supporting civil liberties and fiscal sanity. Romney and Gingrich would bail out the banks again, bachmann supported ndaa and the patriot extensions, santorum only talks about gays and bombing Iran, and huntsman…. Sucks. If not Paul, I’m going with Johnson.

#56, I don’t mean to be rude, but you are beginning to get on my last nerve. What is it you don’t understand? You say you are voting for Paul on issues. What exactly would those issues be? Going back to carrying gold in our pockets instead of paper money? Abolishing the CRA? Civil liberties? Which ones? Be specific, and then, tell me the candidate that would abolish our civil liberties.

You are sucking the Paul Koolaid faster than he can make it. What I am trying to tell you, and that you don’t seem to be comprehending, is that Ron Paul is NOT what you think he is. He is dangerous. He is a 1938 isolationist who would destroy this nation’s ability to export products. You think there are a lot of people unemployed now, just watch as millions of jobs crater under a President Paul. And obviously, Ron Paul doesn’t understand that modern technology will eventually allow for a missile lobbed in Tehran to land in Chicago.

How the hell do you justify the support he gets from skinheads, Birchers, the conspiracy theorists and the KKK? Are they all wrong and only Paulistas like youy are privy to the real Ron Paul? Or is it just some huge conspiracy among all those radical groups to disparage Ron Paul?

We are all judged by the company we keep. Dr. Paul has never explained why he keeps the company he does. But to me, he doesn’t have to. I have known the real Ron Paul for a long time, and personally, I find him as big a disgrace for my state as Sheila Jackson Lee who at least has the excuse that she is stupid.

When I first came online and shifted into libertarianism, Dondero and I were members of a libertarian oriented Yahoo group, and I had some interaction there with him, and saw him argue back and forth with some of the members. He had begun as a member of the official Libertarian movement (which is when he worked for Ron Paul), then about the time I first met him (cybernetically speaking, of course–I’ve never met him IRL) moved into the GOP. At that time he was active in trying to get libertarians to support Bush (approximately 2003) and by then had become hostile to Paul. Eventually I moved away from the Yahoo group, and he receded from my radar.

Dondero is a political hack, first and foremost, and has very low credibility with me. He really is the type of “libertarian” who wanted to use the party to attain some access to political power, and when that didn’t work out, he abandoned it for the GOP. What exactly he does now I’m not sure of. But I would not trust him further than I could throw him with a hundred pound ball attached by an iron chain to his waist. There’s a reason I call him Dondero and nothing more respectful. I presume any statements he makes are done to advance his short term political interest, and may or may not correspond to the truth, especially on topics such as Ron Paul.

JBS, it is my understanding that Dondero was his Mother’s(?) maiden name, and he assumed it to increase his acceptance to the minority community in his primary race against Paul some years back.
His personal reasons for getting involved in politics are his business, and I don’t believe they impact the veracity of his recounted interactions with and for Cong. Paul.

AD–IIRC Paul fired him, or he left after some serious arguments with Paul (my knowledge dates to almost ten years ago, and has gotten somewhat hazy).
But I do know he was guilty of untruths that were either meant to increase his self importance or to damage Paul and various members of the Libertarian party–members of the Yahoo group would cite various facts or self-contradictions that would prove he was lying (or at least wrong), he would deny it, and then re-iterate the statements, often without any attempt to refute the evidence against him.

Perhaps on other topics he can be trusted, not on anything relating to Ron Paul. As far as I am concerned he is the same sort of political hack which the Tea Party is trying to purge from the GOP.

Narciso–yes, he virulently dislikes Ron Paul. He virulently disliked Paul when I first knew him. That should surprise no one.

He also supports Romney, by the way–this may not be apparent at first glance, and I read those posts with the knowledge of how he used to write and argue on that Yahoo group–and not just because he’s the most electable, but because he is (according to Dondero) a true conservative. Although in the three pages I went through the best evidence he could find of that was that Romney says he wants to defund NEA, NPR, etc. But Dondero tried to get libertarians to support George W Bush on the grounds that GWB was really a libertarian….

Well that’s been a fairly recent development, he was enthused about other candidates in the last two or three years, has Ron Paul given any notion that
he really disagrees with any of these position, like
that of Judge Napolitano, that described the civil
war, as the Lincoln’s unnecessary slaughter of 600,000

Daley–he left Paul on very unfriendly terms, although I no longer remember any of the details. His statements about Paul must be understood as the statements of someone who is openly hostile to Paul. He left the Libertarian Party (in which he was at one point very active) when he decided it was politically irrelevant, and became active for the GOP because he wanted some access to political power. His views on Paul are formed by personal dislike. I accept what Retire05 says about his experience with Paul, because there’s no reason not to, but I can’t do that with Dondero.

He may, btw, show up here to defend himself–he has (or at least had at one point) a Google alert setup to notify him when his name appeared in blogthreads and forums.

Narciso–which positions. This morning on the Sunday news shows (forget which one–either Meet the Press or This Week with ABC) he denounced the racism, and came close to ridiculing the 9/11 Truthers.

What Napolitano said is actually widely shared in libertarian movements–more fully, that slavery would have ended by other means, and that using war as an excuse Lincoln made a mockery of limited constitutional government. I don’t agree with the first part, but I sort of agree with the second part.

JBS, Eric is NOTHING as you describe him. And for Ron Paul’s campaign to claim that he was a “disgruntled employee” who Paul fired, is a flat out lie.

He was a loyal (perhaps a bit naive) supporter of Ron Paul who was not only Paul’s top aid, but ran Paul’s campaign when Paul ran as a Libertarian. How can Paul, with any dignity, claim that Eric was a bad employee when Paul employed him for all those years?

But Ron Paul is not above lying. It was Paul, who started spreading the lie that Rick Perry belongs to the Bilderbergers. That crap came from Alex Jones, who frequents Paul on his radio show, and Paul ran with it. The truth of the matter is that Rick Perry, governor of a state that would be in the top twenty GDP if an independent nation, gave a speech at the Bilderburg group, as did John Bolten and Margaret Thatcher. Can we expect Paul to now slam Bolton and Thatcher?

Retire05–Actually, “disgruntled employee” is, from what I know of the facts through other people, an accurate term. He abandoned the LP because he was tired of losing elections. His actual political views seem to be a union of socially liberal and neo-con hawk on foreign matters.
At the very least, Dondero’s hostility to Paul should be enough to mark anything he says as possible false. You were a disinterested witness, or at least an impartial one; Dondero is a very partial one.

I’m not actually defending Paul–I’m just saying that anything that bases itself on Dondero’s statements is based on a rather flimsy reed.

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to irritate you, I just disagree with your assessment of Paul. The issues I support Paul on are ending the war on drugs, abolishing the TSA, EPA, DOE, reducing our military presence over seas, free trade, balancing the budget, ending the fed, and letting states decide marriage laws.

Michelle bachmann, who I was originally hoping to pull the lever for, ended that chance by voting for NDAA. And she continues to support the patriot act. Romney would be a fiscal nightmare, as would newt.

Like I said, the republicans should have left Johnson in. Marginalizing him caused the libertarian republicans to unite under Paul.

You say he’s lying about a lot of it. I disagree.

And Simon, yeah, “not being a criminal” ranks pretty high on my issues list, but I’ve never voted for someone who was pro choice or anti gun. So, enough with the douchebaggery, huh?

An Iranian bomb today, will be an Egyptian, Saudi. Algerian bomb, tomorrow, this was already a likely
hood, but the pattern will be accelerated, and not long after that, AQ gets it’s own arsenal. the example of Pakistan and AQ should have taught us
this lesson,

JBS, you have obviously decided to comment on a situation (between Ron Paul and Eric) that you can only offer a hypothesis. You do not know what exactly transpired. But you should find it a bit odd that the Paul campaign is putting out that Eric was a “disgruntled” employee when he actually worked for Paul for a long time and was trusted enough to be Ron Paul’s senior aide.

Could it be that he finally saw thru Paul like many of us did that had originally supported him? Sometimes people have to come to the realization that what they thought was real, really isn’t. And no, in the beginning, I was not an impartial viewer when it came to Paul, but to be honest, I would not vote for Ron Paul for dogcatcher now and will celebrate the day he retires from Congress.

Ron Paul is dishonest. He vowed that he supported term limits, and would, himself, only seek two terms. Broken promise. He makes a big deal out of voting against pork barrel spending, but then lards bills that he knows will pass with a solid majority with pork for his district, $28 million in just 2008 (check CAGW.org), so he can say he voted against his own pork. He is one of only two Republican Congressmen that would not pledge to not request any pork projects. He’s a poseur, a charletan.

But he pulls in those who are just either too lazy, or too stupid, to really research is career. He gets the stone slackers, the Birchers, the Alex Jones devotees, all the conspiracy theory nut jobs that think FDR organized the Pearl Harbor attacks.

A good friend, a highly decorated retired Air Force pilot (Korea, Vietnam) was on a Ron Paul committee that deals with veteran’s issues. He lasted one year because of Paul’s absurd foreign policies.

So please, don’t presume to tell me that Ron Paul is anything other than what I know him to be.

That said, it’s not like Paul’s competitors aren’t largely selling a load of crap to a bunch of suckers, too.

That’s the only reason a goof like Paul has more than 2% in the polls. The alternatives should be credible supporters of a slate of policies, one conservative, the other progressive, and because it is easier to get power by constantly diluting that, the bar has been lowered to this absurd point where Ron Paul is a contender for President.

We can do so much better. We, right now, have the government we deserve.

That’s true, Dustin. I remember Ross Perot, and wondered why he was doing as well as he did. It was because the Republicans had such a poor candidate (with all due respect), and folks wanted to “send a message.”

And they did…a big percentage for Mr. Perot. And 8 years of the Clintons.

Dondero does not help his cause, by ‘settling’ for Romney, but as with O’Donnell, the better course of action, might be to be assimilated. The opposition tothe likes of TARP are no longer theoretical, they are practical with Buffettt devising it, and Geithner, implementing it, the last almost a Ministry of Silly Walks circumstance,

The irony of course, about the ‘drug war’ is that without the cultural drivers in the media, it wouldn’t matter howe much the supply was, Marijuana
was made illegal in 1937, it didn’t really become a problem till the early 60s,

Simon, that’s right. We need candidates people believe in. If we didn’t really care about character or leadership in a President, perhaps the long term strategy of cynically seeking the center would work (solely for gaining power), but we’re not that stupid.

Bush 43 and Reagan were more conservative than Bush 41, Bob Dole, John Mccain, and Gerald Ford. Nixon’s reelection is the main exception to the rule, and that was during wartime.

If the GOP’s candidate appears to believe in something other than seeking the political center, he’ll probably do better. The democrat candidate seems to be more stable seeking a populist stance du jour (and that makes perfect sense). Also, democrats can pander much more credibly and consistently. We can’t beat them at their game, and need to be a true alternative option to what has become a Washington DC that represents itself, not us.

All that said, conservative policies are also *better*, especially at this late urgent date where if we do not turn spending around quickly, we will see some enormous problems.

Perot was a place for voters who threw their hands up in the air at what the GOP was turning into. They actually scared the GOP straight for a short period of time (when, no shock, the GOP was more successful politically).

That aid was predicated on agreeing to the terms of the Camp David Accords, which included giving Sinai back to the Egyptians (a big mistake IMO).

Exactamundo. That is why I say America has a moral obligation to give Israel the money, but Israel would be better off if it were cut off. And yes, Camp David was a huge mistake for Israel. I’ve been telling people so for over 30 years. As Sadat said at the time, “Poor Menachem; I got the Sinai and all he got was a piece of paper”.

It is also why we give $3B(?)/yr to Egypt, as a bribe for their initial and continued recognition of the Jewish State. The MB seems to think that recognition is not something they wish to continue. Will the Arabists in Foggy Bottom have the IF to withhold the check if that happens? I don’t feel confident.

Forget withholding the check; if Egypt is going to abrogate the treaty it ought to give the Sinai back, and the USA ought to enforce that. Certainly if the USA wants to get honourably out of its treaty obligations it ought to restore the Sinai to Israel and call it quits. But there’s no chance at all of that happening. And if Israel should ever reconquer the Sinai you can bet that the USA will be screaming bloody murder and threatening sanctions or worse, as it did under that bastard Eisenhower.

Icy wrote:

– Israel already decides what’s best for Israel. We “let” them do that NOW.

No, it doesn’t, and no, we don’t. From forcing them to leave the Sinai in ’56; to forcing them to let the Egyptian Third Army go and agree to Kissinger’s ceasefire; to the Camp David Treaty; to not letting them finish off the PLO in ’82; forcing them to the Madrid conference; promising them a $10B loan guarantee in return for not retaliating against Saddam Hussein’s SCUDs, and then reneging on the promise; the “roadmap”; the “two-state solution”; the building freeze; etc. America constantly imposes its will on Israel, openly interferes in Israeli elections, and in general treats Israel as a vassal. And Israel sits there and lets itself be treated that way, because it’s become dependent on the money and the Security Council vetoes.

– So your argument is that Paul’s stance is best because Obama is more publicly hatey in his dissing of Israel? Wonderful.

No, I think Paul’s stance, which is to tell the Israelis that there will be no more money but they’re free to buy whatever they like from USA arms manufacturers, and the USA promises not to interfere no matter what they do in self-defense, would be great for them. (And as a libertarian I don’t see how he could justify preventing them from buying arms.) Nixon’s arms airlift saved Israel from extinction, but the price he extracted for it was dreadful.

In 2008, I was a register Libertarian. They are and were a total mess! Who did they end up nominating in 2008? Bob Barr! Christine Smith did all the work, and some interloper walks in at the last minute and takes the nomination.
Now Gary Johnson wants to do the same thing? Pfft!How can anyone take the LP seriously? I’m now a registered Independent.

This is one reason I always indicate the distinction between Libertarian — the party and political movement — with libertarianism — the philosophical notion regarding limited government.

In this mind, I often cite Grover Cleveland as our last truly great PotUS — by virtue of his veto of the Texas Seed Bill (from the wiki entry):

After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Karl, with respect to your update, it’s not the the proportion of nutters in a third party that is so high, but their degree of nutterness. This may be statistically necessary, being already out in the tail of the Bell Curve.

One of the reasons I found that the needed nose-holding in the Republican Party wasn’t so onerous. Weren’t so many people I disagreed with in the LP, but those I did could stink up the room by their lonesome.

Colonel,
I think you meant to say “their desire to use drugs.” unless you’re telling me that the entire congress in 1933 was just hammered drunk when they ended prohibition, the desire to end prohibition and the desire to use drugs legally are two different things. My wife has never touched a drug in her life, but she opposes the war on drugs, because it’s government protecting you from yourself.

Libertarianism has been coopted much as liberalism has. The words mean two things now.

Ron Earmark Paul with his railing against Israel’s concentration camps is a foreign policy loudmouth pretending not to be because he simply is agitating in the wrong direction. He’s not staying out of it.

And the dude’s best defense is that he couldn’t run a newsletter properly.

I don’t know. Mitt Romney is crying that the mandate is conservative after crying that he’s progressive (I guess this means Mitt compromised on the mandate, which says a lot about what’s in that man’s liberal heart).

My biggest problem is the no knock raid. My sister almost got killed during one. She was reaching for her glasses when they kicked in her door (she was at her drug dealing boyfriends house).

It’s impossible to justify those damn things for crimes like ‘they might flush some drugs down the commode’.

It’s not the country I want to live in. I think cops shouldn’t enter my home that way, putting lives at risk, unless there is something serious at risk.

I mean, sure, we can carp about how your sis shouldn’t have been there, but these raids go wrong, go to the wrong places, and, sadly, are even becoming a weapon of political terrorism (though this will sound strange, it’s the truth).

Oh and dustin, you’re right that it should be a state issue. My state says that smoking marijuana is legal if you have a doctors note, but the Feds could arrest me at any time. That’s just screwy to me.

Not that I particularly enjoy Ghost’s stories, but if his sister was in fact at her “drug dealing boyfriend’s” house, her problems may well be larger than a no-knock raid. I’m more concerned with no-knock raids on non-drug dealing people—and sometimes those drug dealers get just a little bit paranoid and act out.

Maybe Ghost should do what brothers need to do to protect family members? Unless it’s a really cool drug dealing boyfriend, I mean.

Not that I particularly enjoy Ghost’s stories, but if his sister was in fact at her “drug dealing boyfriend’s” house, her problems may well be larger than a no-knock raid. I’m more concerned with no-knock raids on non-drug dealing people—and sometimes those drug dealers get just a little bit paranoid and act out.

That’s not a very good argument about the policy of no knock raids. Ghost’s point was not that he is setting the example for us to follow as brothers. His point was that no knock raids can harm innocent people. Every no knock raid carries a substantial risk of someone being killed.

I know internet news can be pretty damn distorted, but some of these stories of no knock raids suggest the warrants were issued for weak reasons.

Anyway, I’m sure Ghost would prefer his sister not hang with druggies.

The effed up part, is that if I was a suspected murderer, they would have to knock, announce themselves, present a search warrant and read me my rights. Corey Mayes ended up shooting a cop who he thought was a burglar breaking into his house. There was the marine who was gunned down in his own home because they thought he was a drug runner.

Icy,
How it works is like this: Oregon legalizes, Montana doesn’t. I do my drugs in Oregon, I’m fine. I take those drugs into Montana, and I can be arrested. Montana can go ahead and fill their prisons with nonviolent drug offenders, and they can pay the prison bill for it. Likewise, Montana wouldn’t have to pay for any of the repercussions of Oregon legalizing. You can’t fight a war on drugs without a big bloated federal government.

Dustin, you are a nice man. Just ask Ghost directly if he thinks drug dealers are bad people that his sister shouldn’t associate with. C’mon.

Comment by Simon Jester —

It’s not relevant to the policy issue. That’s my point. Not seeing much need to go into the character of people I disagree with. But if Ghost thinks his sister should associate with druggies then obviously he is very mistaken.

“…His point was that no knock raids can harm innocent people. Every no knock raid carries a substantial risk of someone being killed….”

I quite agree. My point is that I am much more concerned about no-knock raids on innocent people, not people who are drug dealers. And I said so, explicitly.

Which brings us back to earlier points. I am very concerned about innocent people. But the sister knew that her boyfriend dealt drugs (and remember, you nor I don’t know the details of why a no-knock raid took place).

Please don’t try to make it appear that I do not care about innocent people. One can always say that there shouldn’t be laws against dealing drugs, but if one does, one must know one is breaking the law, and must—as a good libertarian—own that risk. The sad part, as always, are the friends and neighbors of people who are taking the risk. I could make the argument, with some justice, that the dealers are endangering their friends (because, again, they are choosing to break the law, and are well aware of the risks).

She’s my big sister, but i did everything I could as a freshmen in highschool to protect her. She made her own choices, and praise God, she’s clean now.

And icy, the colonel insinuated that people who are against the drug war just want to use drugs. If he truly believes that, then he must believe that the only reason congress voted in 1933 to end prohibition was because they all really wanted to get plastered. As far as Feds arresting people for weed, google “DOJ California marijuana dispensaries.” I could list all the links, but the comment would get put in moderation as potential spam. Yes people are being arrested, having businesses shut down, bank accounts seized, the works.

I quite agree. My point is that I am much more concerned about no-knock raids on innocent people, not people who are drug dealers. And I said so, explicitly.

Yeah, sure, I get that.

I’m not sure I agree, but I understand. One easy way to answer that is to point out that no knock raids do not always hit guilty parties. I mean, what if Ghost’s sister was trying to get her boyfriend off drugs. Should people avoid doing this for fear of raids?

But I take a different stance. The fear of drugs being destroyed is not a sufficient reason to create the situation of officers storming a house where the officers could be hurt, families could be hurt, and yes, even those dealers who are poisoning kids could be hurt.

Even though I think those dealers belong in a cage for the rest of their life, at best, I don’t think the fear of evidence being destroyed justifies the risks. People have already died from these things. The price is just too much for me. Even for people who put themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, well aware of the risks. Awareness of the risk of the government going too far is not enough for me.

Dustin, I have seen you stand up for people who didn’t merit your support in the past, on principle. It’s admirable, and I mean that sincerely.

Comment by Simon Jester

The answer to speech I disagree with is more speech, and the answer to commenters I have concluded are pointless is simply to ignore them.

I also think some guys poke, but also offer productive views, and their heart is in the right place, but they get way too bent out of shape and they let that lead to a lot of stupid attacks. Eric is a good example of this.

Even when Ron was outing me I didn’t ask him to be banned. I think free speech is actually sacred.

Simon,
Man, you’re so clever. You’re just too quick for me. All drug dealers are saints, who are only trying to better their lives.

You really are a damn moron. I’m trying to make it so violent drug dealers don’t have a black market to control, so I must think they’re all swell. I grow my own because I despise drug dealers, ya freakin tool. Oh, thats right. You’ve had my number since the first post. You know exactly how I feel on everything. I’m still waiting to hear how voting 100% prolife and 100% progun makes me a single issue voter for marijuana. On another thread you accused me of being someone who used to post here. You just know me so well, eh Kreskin?

No, he’s a smart guy who seems to think drugs are a seriously bad thing, and thinks accordingly.

You’ve had my number since the first post.

That stuff wasn’t helpful, but he’s got basis because a lot of commenters are basically what he’s assumed. The best reply is to just explain where he’s mistaken, or even just stick to policies and ignore the ancillary stuff. Simon is a great commenter but his patience is basically where mine was not too long ago.

Interestingly, the extremely liberal state that thought Romney worthy of power also is the nation’s foremost supporter of drug legalization. 58% of MA subjects polled want some recreational narcotic use legalized.

Mitt Romney: he makes more sense if your brain is pickled in drug-brine or are of a lefty political persuasion (but I repeat myself).

Dustin, I tried that all the first time around with Simon. And if the guy is going to assume he knows everything about me from a few Internet comments, then yeah, he’s a damn moron. He may be intelligent, but he’s still a damn moron. He has no clue how to hold a civil debate, and his only response to anything I’ve posted has been a personal attack. I love it, really. I should have protected my sister (though I was just a child), I like drug dealers and think my family should associate with them, I’m someone else entirely… But I’m the rude one for calling out douchebaggery.

Simon behaves like a woman. Throw insults around all day, and then cry about rudeness when someone calls her the b word.

Colonel,was a single dad. Hence the “my wife has never done drugs” comment. It’s not misogynistic to note that women debate more with emotions, while men debate more with logic. That’s called “observation.” it’s also true of leftists.

Dustin, I’m not here because of whiny little girls like Simon. I’m here because I enjoy Pat’s and Karl’s blogs. But for some reason, anytime I post a comment, Bitchy McWhinypants has to throw some sort of personal attack, like he’s comment stalking me. Almost like he’s obsessed with what I have to say. Every time I give him ample time to actually have a debate, but then I’ve got to call a spade a spade, or in his case, call a douchebag a douchebag.

Sean Hannity said on the radio (he’s live today, unlike many others. Rush Limbaugh replayed his show of Monday, November 28)

Sean Hannity said on the radio that Newt Gingrich answered questions from him, Mitt Romney answered questions – he’s got some topics running out of his ears or so – but as soon as brought up the newsletters with Ron Paul – and he asked it only once – his campaign people looked at him like …

How it works is like this: Oregon legalizes, Montana doesn’t. I do my drugs in Oregon, I’m fine. I take those drugs into Montana, and I can be arrested. Montana can go ahead and fill their prisons with nonviolent drug offenders, and they can pay the prison bill for it. Likewise, Montana wouldn’t have to pay for any of the repercussions of Oregon legalizing. You can’t fight a war on drugs without a big bloated federal government.

– And the last time the Feds arrested someone for smoking marijuana was when, Mr “Can Be”?

Retire05, it is clear that you have had some personal experience here. I hope that people read and think about what you have written.

Oh, if he only recorded an ad for broadcasting in Iowa.

How can people not know all this stuff?

Of course one question has to be, what exactly is/was Ron Paul up to with this campaign? It’s not to get elected – he has to know that can’t reasonably happen. Who’s he trying to help? Or hurt? Who or what inspired this campaign? If hes trying to promote himself, why is he quitting Congress? Too much work at his age?

And icy, the colonel insinuated that people who are against the drug war just want to use drugs. If he truly believes that, then he must believe that the only reason congress voted in 1933 to end prohibition was because they all really wanted to get plastered

– Ghost, the Colonel “insinuated” that many libertarians are single-issue in their concerns. And he was speaking of the voting public, not elected representatives.

Ok, so the people who are voting to end the drug war just want to get high, but the members of congress in 33 didn’t just want to get shitfaced when they voted to repeal it?

My point is, it’s entirely unfair to categorize one group as social deviants but not the other. If everyone who is against prohibition now just wants to get high, then everyone who was against it then just wanted to get drunk. It’s the same law, just a different (and in the case of marijuana, much less destructive) poisons.

Sean Hannity again complained 10-15 minutes ago about Ron Paul. He said he asked Mitt Romney about Romneycare, switching positions etc. He asked Newt Gingrich about his personal life, whether he’s different now than he was as Speaker, what he said about the Ryan plan, and the Pelosi ad. None of them took it bad. But when he asked Paul about the newsletters, he got mad and his supporters got mad.

[Some of them seem to be cautious maybe because someone else is writing them and is not talking it over wit Newt Gingrich. The Pelosi ad thing is not explained at all. I haven’t seen the ad so I don’t know what the ad actually says. What did he understand the ad to be about?

Newt’s answer on the Ryan plan is incoherent and only makes sense if he didn’t understand what the Ryan plan when he answered it – Newt says he doesn’t believe dramatic change should not be imposed by any political party against the consent of the governed. Was Ryan proposing that? Was this “In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition” Why should that be called “social engineering?” And why it is an answer that “his choice of words was too extreme. Shouldn’t the answer be that he wasn’t talking about the Ryan plan exactly or thate didn’t know what it was about?

Of course one question has to be, what exactly is/was Ron Paul up to with this campaign? It’s not to get elected – he has to know that can’t reasonably happen. Who’s he trying to help? Or hurt? Who or what inspired this campaign? If hes trying to promote himself, why is he quitting Congress? Too much work at his age?

But that’s not all there is to it. Ron Paul is sincere about a lot of this stuff. He wants to bring attention to these issues. Right or wrong, I think that’s probably why.

Also, Newt can’t give a satisfactory answer on Ryan’s plan because he obviously made a big mistake in his criticisms. I think the problem was ignorance. Which is good, because ignorance is the most easily solved issue, and I think Newt is probably on the right side apart from having to deal with his remarks.

As far as the Pelosi ad, Newt says he was wrong. Pretty simple.

We have to settle for someone. Unfortunately, conservatives are eaten alive because they are a threat to a lot of powerful folks.

And as Daley’s 9;37 pm link indicates he was in the John Kerry wing, back in 1988, following the Christics, (interesting sidenote one of those caught up in that craziness, Richard Armitage,
was defended against such allegations by Lewis
Libby, no good deed goes unpunished,)

And yeah, forcing people to make economic decisions against their will so as to fund ‘to each according to their need from each according to his ability’ healthcare (free for a lot of people, subsidized for many more) is pretty much socialism. Or conservatism, if you ask Mitt.

The difference between then and now, is no significant media, was retailing the 9/11 denialist
tropes in 2008, at least not in this country, that crazyness made it into the series finale of Miami
Vice, Cagney and Lacey, and Steven Segal before he became acquainted with Mr. Pellicano.

Colonel, you’re conflating “could” and “would.” I most likely will not be arrested for either growing or smoking, as I’m not going to pop up on federal radars because I don’t sell or traffic. Chances are, they aren’t going to use NDAA to disappear political dissidents. I’m not okay with giving them that power.

And I will gladly apologize for twisting your opinion of anti drug war folks if you could kindly explain the legitimacy of legalized alcohol along with outlawed marijuana. You suggest their motivation is using drugs. I’m simply asking if you think the majority of congress in 33 were closeted drunks who only voted that way to get their hooch back. If not, then why assume that now?

We have the benefit of hindsight. We saw what it did in the 20′s and we see what’s going on now, and it’s the same damn thing.

Did getting rid of Prohibition stop the rise of Organized Crime, no they were able to entrench themselves even farther, in all the other vices,
Hoover is faulted for not involving the Bureau in those matters, in the way Anslinger, was,

When constitutional republicans are pushed to the fringe, it’s not surprising that they find themselves in the company of other fringe elements.

I voted straight ticket GOP for 54 years, believing it to be the lesser of two evils, but I will never vote for another GOP candidate. Their support for a law that authorizes indefinite detention of US citizens without trial was the last straw.

GOP and Dem are nothing more than the right and left hands of the plutocracy.

SF: Of course one question has to be, what exactly is/was Ron Paul up to with this campaign? It’s not to get elected – he has to know that can’t reasonably happen. Who’s he trying to help? Or hurt? Who or what inspired this campaign? If hes trying to promote himself, why is he quitting Congress? Too much work at his age?

Sean Hannity said another thing today. I think the reason he spoke so much was that he is putting Michele Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry on the air today and tomorrow but Ron Paul is not hjere . Ron Paul was invited but his campaign did not reply. Whar Sean Hannity said was that the last time (either he as there or they were talking abut it) after the last Fox debate his people said he would go on but he shouldn’t ask him a question about whether or not he is going to run on a third party line in the general election. Sean said he doesn’t take questions from campaigns.

Another fact: Somebody in South Carolina sent out a mass e-mail addressed to “Fellow Republicans, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and other Patriotic Americans” that attacked Sean Hannity and Rick Santorum.

The author is Chris Golden, a Ron Paul activist who says he is a Catholic. He accused them of not being Catholics, or being heretics, or some kind of neo-con infiltrators because they didn’t follow Pope John Paul II on the Iraq war.

It also complained Sean Hannity had hosted Protestant Frank Graham and that he used the Protestant version of a prayer in his book.

Also, Newt can’t give a satisfactory answer on Ryan’s plan because he obviously made a big mistake in his criticisms. I think the problem was ignorance. Which is good, because ignorance is the most easily solved issue, and I think Newt is probably on the right side apart from having to deal with his remarks.

I think that the most logical explanation is that he didn’t know what he was talking about – he didn’t what the Ryan plan exactly was but spoke about it anyway. But he won’t admit it. It would help to have an exact transcript of that Meet the Press interview.

I see here that it wasn’t Newt Gingrich who mentioned Paul Ryan – it was David Gregory, who described this plan as “completely changing Medicare.” Newt Gingrich did not speak about the Ryan plan but rather the idea of going ahead without popular support. (like, it might be mentioned, the Democrats did with the Affordable Care Act)

The only thing Newt Gingrich did is not contradict David Gregory. I think he can be forgiven for knowing what was in the Ryan plan – but he should have admitted ignorance. Who does he think he is, Sarah Palin, who couldn’t admit not being informed about anything? Why should he have been up on the latest developments in Congress?

As far as the Pelosi ad, Newt says he was wrong. Pretty simple.

What his web site said is like this:

Newt believes that conservatives cannot be absent from the conversation about the environment and instead that conservatives must offer and explain why conservative solutions are better. Unfortunately, the attempt to get that message out through the ad with Nancy Pelosi failed. On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.

The problem here is, what exactly did this ad say? The only thing I’ve seen is that excerpt where Nancy Pelosi says something to the effect of “we have our differences, but we agree on this….”

What the ad said further I don’t know.

Newt’s responses both here and with the Paul Ryan thing should show the exact quotes.

We have to settle for someone. >

People are coming to think that way. hat is, tat there is no perfect candidate.

Right she could have said the US and France kicked
Hezbollah out of Lebanon, or said ‘the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor,’ or that part about FDR and
the fireside on TV, Newt was being controversial, provocative, for the sake of being so, and this has
often boomeranged back on him. The same unfortunately for Perry, and his ‘hanging Bernanke
comments’ they trivialized a real issue, the impact
of QE 2, on household finances,

Reverting to the War on Drugs for a moment, I’d like to throw this out for y’all to mull over. It’s not so much meant for discussion as to prompt people to think a little deeper.

If the government can legitimately forbid you to use marijuana, heroin, or any other drug, it can also legitimately forbid you to eat cheeseburgers and candy and forbid you to drink Pepsi-cola. It might or might not be stretching the point to say it could force you to eat your broccoli.

Ultimately drug prohibition can be justified only by a big government/unlimited government philosophy.

Also in arguing with the libertarian view, it’s helpful to remember that libertarianism is a sort of unified theory of government, and another aspect of that theory would put an end to the welfare state–which means that individuals who make bad choices about using drugs would have to pay for their own mistakes on their own, without recourse to taxpayer funded subsidies.

And, for Simon’s benefit, I haven’t even seen a joint for thirty years or more, much less smoked one.

Bloomberg is a Democrat, not a libertarian.
(Yes, I know what he is officially, but…)

And from the libertarian prospective, mainstream conservatism (or at least social conservatism) is equally inconsistent–it’s against big government except on those issues in which it’s for big government.

he didn’t what the Ryan plan exactly was but spoke about it anyway. But he won’t admit it

Yeah, that’s probably right. Sad, of course.

Yet the alternative may very well be someone with a record of expanding the government enormously, with no serious chance of reforming it.

If the government can legitimately forbid you to use marijuana, heroin, or any other drug, it can also legitimately forbid you to eat cheeseburgers and candy and forbid you to drink Pepsi-cola. It might or might not be stretching the point to say it could force you to eat your broccoli.

My hang up (my inconsistency) is that I worry about kids getting drugs. I saw this all the time growing up and it ruined the life of someone I care about, who was no adult and made very unadult decisions. So I recognize I’m being paternalistic… I can accept adults making decisions and suffering the consequences of them, free of a nanny government, but I can’t accept a situation where kids are getting this stuff (not that I know the war on drugs has helped on this end, but philosophically, I want some restrictions because of that concern).

Is it the government’s place to say pot is a no-no, for adults? Not in my opinion. Even though I think marijuana causes more problems than most people are willing to admit.

If ObamaCare is not struck down, or repealed, the requirement to maintain a healthy life-style will interject the Feds into everything that every individual does, or doesn’t, do; due to the financial obligation that your individual acts put upon the government.

It’s been the law since 1937, Dustin, for the longest while it wasn’t really that big of a problem, the late Robert Mitchum went to jail for a stint, yet he was able to recover, then we started
to give assent to those things that made us weaker,
and condemn those that made us stronger,

Colonel,
And again, I wasn’t drawn to it, I had a doctor recommend it to me. The study was about people who are predisposed to experimenting with drugs. That wasn’t me. I still have my straight edge tattoo from the 8 years that I didn’t even take a Tylenol. (which is legal without a prescription, but I’d you take too many, it’ll be your last headache). Even still, I don’t drink, smoke, or take Tylenol. Aside from tea, I don’t drink caffeine.

Clear enough? Predisposed vs doctor recommended. The same could be said for people who abuse Vicodin.

And I don’t see why anyone would scandalize medical marijuana. So long as it’s prescribed like other controlled substances, what’s the problem? If a doctor thinks it’s the best option, what’s the problem?

Though I think pot potentially causes a lot of serious problems, so does chemo and I wouldn’t want goofballs banning that.

I realize this is a bit of a different issue from adults having free choice. Unfortunately, we’re headed down the Romneycare road, so everything you do is my business now. That’s not the society I want. I don’t think it’s any of my business.

I can accept adults making decisions and suffering the consequences of them, free of a nanny government, but I can’t accept a situation where kids are getting this stuff

usually, when that aspect of the topic comes up–kids–most libertarians (meaning almost all except the most doctrinaire kind)–envisage some sort of scheme like we do for alcohol, to at least limit the access kids have to drugs. That’s because most libertarians understand that kids can need protection their parents can’t always provide–and sometimes kids need protection from their parents.

#204, Ghost, glad to know that you think by legalizing drugs there would be less drugs in the hands of kids. After all, that has worked so well when it comes to alcohol, hasn’t it. Since the repeal of Prohibition, there are no drunk teenagers, right?

So tell us, do you think that the federal government should also abolish the laws that govern medical prescriptions, as well?

Retire, I didn’t say that or even imply that. I said its easier to keep it out of kids hands.

How has the drug war kept drugs away from kids? Making it illegal has really kept weed out of the hands of teens? Of course it hasn’t. At least through regulation, you could make it more difficult (not impossible, but then the drug war isn’t making it impossible, either) for kids to buy.

Your final question is irrelevant, what someone might call a strawman, but what the hell, I’m in the giving spirit today. Abolish, no, reform, yes.

Milhouse, you do know that unlike — oh, just about every other nation on the planet — Israel actually pays back its loans, don’t you?

Of course it does. That $10B loan guarantee that Bush promised and then went back on was vital for Israel, but wouldn’t have cost the USA a cent.

But a good deal of the US aid to Israel is not loan guarantees but grants. The compensation the USA pays Israel for having given away the Sinai is (as far as I know) paid in cash, as is the amount the US pays Egypt for having deigned to accept it. And that cash has harmed Israel the way heroin harms an addict. It has enslaved Israel and turned it into a vassal of the USA.

No, he’s a smart guy who seems to think drugs are a seriously bad thing, and thinks accordingly.

That’s not sufficient. He not only thinks they’re a seriously bad thing, but also that it’s any of his damn business what seriously bad things other people do, and that he (via his agents, the police) have the right to use force against people and deprive them of their inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, just because he disapproves of what they’re doing. In other words, he believes the same thing as Obama and Algore and Bloomberg; he just has different ideas about what that power should be used for. And if that’s the difference between “conservatives” and communists then they’re equally evil.

If it’s none of the government’s damn business whether I kill a snail darter or chop down a tree or drive a hummer or pour salt on everything I eat, then it’s also none of its damn business whether I inject myself with heroin or Clorox. My body, my business. If I want to be a damn fool, that’s my right. And if it’s none of the government’s business if I sell CFCs or Crisco, then it’s equally none of its business if I sell heroin, so long as I don’t conceal from the customers what they’re getting.

Did getting rid of Prohibition stop the rise of Organized Crime, no they were able to entrench themselves even farther, in all the other vices,

Listen to yourself. No, it didn’t put them out of business, because not all “vices” were legalized. But it dealt them a serious blow. Had gambling, prostitution, and all drugs been legalized at the same time as alcohol, the blow to organized crime would have been all the greater. Sure there’s money in actual crime, but not as much of it, because victims reset it and eventually someone calls the police. The thing about “vices” is that there are no victims, so the only ones likely to call the police are rivals, who are hampered because they’re in the same business, but not as connected.

My hang up (my inconsistency) is that I worry about kids getting drugs. I saw this all the time growing up and it ruined the life of someone I care about, who was no adult and made very unadult decisions. So I recognize I’m being paternalistic… I can accept adults making decisions and suffering the consequences of them, free of a nanny government, but I can’t accept a situation where kids are getting this stuff

1. How is it your business, or mine? And if it’s neither of our business, then how is it the government’s? Where can the government get the right to do anything about it, if no individual citizen has that right?

2. If preventing kids from getting drugs is sufficient reason to justify their prohibition, then why is it not sufficient to justify the prohibition of alcohol, tobacco, cars, weapons of all sorts, fireworks, matches, etc? And why is it not sufficient to justify forcing everyone to eat their broccoli and spinach?

So’s alcohol. It’s God’s gift to man, and it’s a wonder drug for the body and mind. For the past 30 years and more, study after study have shown that regular moderate consumption of alcohol (one or two drinks a day) improves the health in all sorts of ways. At first they thought it was something in red wine, but looking closer at the data forces the conclusion that by far the majority of the effect is from the alcohol, and that it doesn’t matter in what form it’s drunk. A shot of vodka is about as good for you as a glass of red wine; whichever you choose, just stick to one or two a day.

#204, Ghost, glad to know that you think by legalizing drugs there would be less drugs in the hands of kids. After all, that has worked so well when it comes to alcohol, hasn’t it. Since the repeal of Prohibition, there are no drunk teenagers, right?

You’re not that stupid; rather, you’re being deliberately dishonest. Does it feel good? Does it make you feel like a human being? So tell us, do you think that the federal government should also abolish the laws that govern medical prescriptions, as well? Of course it should. Why is that even a question among people who claim to cherish liberty? Where the @#$% does a government get the right to tell people what they can prescribe, and who can prescribe it? Who delegated that right to the government, and where did they get it from?

#204, Ghost, glad to know that you think by legalizing drugs there would be less drugs in the hands of kids. After all, that has worked so well when it comes to alcohol, hasn’t it. Since the repeal of Prohibition, there are no drunk teenagers, right?

You’re not that stupid; rather, you’re being deliberately dishonest. Does it feel good? Does it make you feel like a human being?

So tell us, do you think that the federal government should also abolish the laws that govern medical prescriptions, as well?

Of course it should. Why is that even a question among people who claim to cherish liberty? Where the @#$% does a government get the right to tell people what they can prescribe, and who can prescribe it? Who delegated that right to the government, and where did they get it from?

Link from Ace of Spades. The quality of the pictures, even after clicking again on the individual pages, is not too good. You have to make them full screen. They all have an extremely harsh tone and seems to be only interested in things where you can (smugly?) feel harsh to people.

“I wouldn’t want to do without HSL. It’s a must for global outlook and investing.”
– Ron Paul
U.S. Congressman

The sample issue there is Dec 2007. It seems to endorse Ron Paul.

Ron Paul
December 2007

Ron has received huge grassroot $- support. A vote for Ron is not a wasted vote because all the other candidates are useless, in reform terms. Whereas, a Paul vote is USEFUL to educate the public & broadcast to all that citizens want REAL reform, in every area of govt. Everyone I know is sending a contribution to Ron. They “know” he can’t win (?), but they want to say they are “mad as hell” at the system & all the participants.

Already 20K people have signed up to send a donation on Dec 16 to set another record like Nov 5 record. I’m sure U know Ron stands for a return to the gold standard, abolishing the IRS & the Fed, bringing all the troops home from all 148 military bases around the world, shrinking govt, & restoring the Constitution! No other candidate is for any of these! This must be the 1st time in US history that people will vote for a candidate they think can’t win, but they want their vote to count–to send a loud message that enough is enough. It may be the last chance to say so! Here are net addresses U may wish to vet: http://www.ronpaul2008.comhttp://www.teaparty07.comhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfAhttp://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

TeaParty07??!

That becomes TeaParty11 and collects donations for Ron Paul.

More from that newsletter:

A financial tsunami is upon us. We are well into a recession, begun 18mos ago. !

If, as you say, Sammy, Gingrich didn’t poormouth Ryan’s plan, why did he apologize for doing it several months later when the subject came up?

He poor-mouthed first, a hypothetical general legislative policy, and then David Gregory’s description of the Ryan plan. Not the actual Ryan plan. Gingrich admitted it didn’t deserve those words. I’m sure Gingrich didn’t know some of the qualifications Ryan had in his plan.

And why did Ryan react to the thing you claim Gingrich did not do, taking some shots at Newt?

He didn’t double check what the reporters told him. Both Ryan and Gingrich were relying on what reporters told them.

Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan did have some differences.

The original Ryan plan would have kept Medicare for people now aged 55 and older nut replaced it a voucher plan for this younger. Later Newt and Ryan got together and now the plan calls for letting people choose traditional Medicare.

Of course they are both wrong. The key problem is that it never to the vast majority of people what doctors and hospitals charge. The problem stems from insurance itself. It is not good enough and in fact useless for a small minority to care about prices. It’s got to matter to something like 75% at least – yet all people have to be able to afford anything they feel they need. Now that means of course devising a much more complicated system. I have some ideas.

If the government can legitimately forbid you to use marijuana, heroin, or any other drug,
– While it’s technically true that the government can “forbid” the use of narcotics, federal prosecutions are limited to cases of trafficking or possession with intent to distribute.

it can also legitimately forbid you to eat cheeseburgers and candy and forbid you to drink Pepsi-cola.
– It can; however, the fact that we ‘allow’ the government to ban one consumable substance does not in itself give it carte blanche to ban other items.

So’s alcohol. It’s God’s gift to man, and it’s a wonder drug for the body and mind.

I agree and should have noted it and it’s a better example for this discussion.

However, alcohol is both a gift and a test. A test I’ve fortunately never had a problem with (I’m not judging those who do find it difficult).

But yes, alcohol is a great thing to enjoy as part of life, and a great way to teach the lesson of moderation, which has much more important applications in life.

How is it your business, or mine?

I just insist upon being paternalistic with kids. I freely grant this is inconsistent with other views I’m expressing. I’m treating kids as though they don’t have the same freedom, and even wanting government to prohibit them from doing things, as though that’s a power it naturally has. Yes, that’s inconsistent, I admit.

But don’t misinterpret what I’m saying, if I’ve been unclear. I’m speaking very generally. I’m not saying I think the government should bar parents from sharing a beer with their thirteen year old daughter (in fact, I think this is an important lesson to teach kids).

I recall a young lady I went to high school with whose parents barred all ‘drugs’, to include sodas. She had no understanding of moderation and the results were predictable.

If the government can legitimately forbid you to use marijuana, heroin, or any other drug,
– While it’s technically true that the government can “forbid” the use of narcotics, federal prosecutions are limited to cases of trafficking or possession with intent to distribute.

it can also legitimately forbid you to eat cheeseburgers and candy and forbid you to drink Pepsi-cola.
– It can; however, the fact that we ‘allow’ the government to ban one consumable substance does not in and of itself give it carte blanche to ban other items. Sometimes it’s a good thing, though. We don’t need to use whale oil for perfume, and we don’t need to preserve the-right-to-use-whale-oil-for-perfume as a matter of libertarian principle, either.

Icy, eventually (probably sooner than later is Sibelius’ history is any guide), O-care regs will contain “guidelines” for good nutrition for health maintanance with the idea that a healthy body is one that doesn’t put a financial drain on the system.
You will find these “guidelines” limiting the amount of salt, fat, sugar, etc. that you may consume on a daily basis.
People who are overweight will be required to diet under possible penalty – the regulatory Fat Tax.

JBS,If the government can legitimately forbid you to use marijuana, heroin, or any other drug,
– While it’s technically true that the government can “forbid” the use of narcotics, federal prosecutions are limited to cases of trafficking or possession with intent to distribute.

it can also legitimately forbid you to eat cheeseburgers and candy and forbid you to drink Pepsi-cola.
– It can; however, the fact that we ‘allow’ the government to ban one consumable substance does not in and of itself give it carte blanche to ban other items. Sometimes it’s a good thing, though. We don’t need to use whale oil for perfume, and we don’t need to preserve the-right-to-use-whale-oil-for-perfume as a matter of libertarian principle, either.

It might or might not be stretching the point to say it could force you to eat your broccoli.
– John “Rich White Trash” Edwards included mandatory doctor visits in his version of Obamacare. There are a lot of possibilities to what the government could do; some of them are realistic possibilities, others are best relegated to the realm of paranoid conspiracy theories.

Ultimately drug prohibition can be justified only by a big government/unlimited government philosophy.
– That statement is so all-encompassing as to become meaningless, frankly. If on a basic philosophical level you do not believe in the federal government’s ability to regulate anything, then you are championing an anarchist state. And this is the problem with libertarian Puritanism:
You advocate for the ultimate level for freedom — “do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else” — without due regard to the high probability that allowing certain freedoms within the structure of a civilized society will inevitably lead to someone getting hurt.

Also in arguing with the libertarian view, it’s helpful to remember that libertarianism is a sort of unified theory of government, and another aspect of that theory would put an end to the welfare state–which means that individuals who make bad choices about using drugs would have to pay for their own mistakes on their own, without recourse to taxpayer funded subsidies.
– “Unified” in the sense of “we’re not getting involved”. Yes, well when it comes to the welfare state it’s going in the right direction; but again, there has to be some structure, with a certain limited level of involvement, in order for this thing we call America to continue on.

But a good deal of the US aid to Israel is not loan guarantees but grants. The compensation the USA pays Israel for having given away the Sinai is (as far as I know) paid in cash, as is the amount the US pays Egypt for having deigned to accept it. And that cash has harmed Israel the way heroin harms an addict. It has enslaved Israel and turned it into a vassal of the USA.
Comment by Milhouse — 1/2/2012 @ 10:57 pm

– And this is why, when Obama urged his “vassal” to go back to the pre-1967 borders, Bibi told him to go frack himself; right?

Israel is tiny, natural resource poor, and surrounded by enemies. It needs a strong ally in order to maintain its security. THAT is the reality on the ground.

AD, since they’re so fond of using the “mandatory auto insurance” analogy in defense of the individual mandate, I have no doubt that what you say is true. I can see it now: The National Institute For Health’s Bodily Integrity Division.

That statement is so all-encompassing as to become meaningless, frankly. If on a basic philosophical level you do not believe in the federal government’s ability to regulate anything, then you are championing an anarchist state. And this is the problem with libertarian Puritanism:
You advocate for the ultimate level for freedom — “do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else” — without due regard to the high probability that allowing certain freedoms within the structure of a civilized society will inevitably lead to someone getting hurt.

May I remind you that libertarianism has two camps? The anarcho-capitalists don’t see a need for government at all. The minarchists believe, pretty much like the Founders did, that the government’s appropriate role is protect citizens from aggression–that is crimes against property and person, and foreign invasion–and provide a system for dispute resolution. In other words, police, a reasonable military for defense, and a court system.

Anything that falls outside those areas should be none of the government’s business. It is an example of “big government”, even if it seems relatively small or common-sensical. My point was that the same principle lies behind government forbidding the use of heroin or marijauna and government forbidding cheeseburgers or old fashioned light bulbs. If you grant it the power to do one, you’re also granting it the power to do the other–and your objections are simply pragmatic objections, not principled objections. If someone gets hurt because another person used their own freedom irresponsibly–that’s what the court system is for, just like now.

This would mean for instance that while it would be proper to make sure that the pain medication your doctor prescribes you is pure when you get it from the pharmacy, and that the manufacturer is not making false claims about it, the government has no business interfering with your doctor’s decision to prescribe that medication and in what quantities he should prescribe it.

Actually, the AnCaps believe that too–they just argue, against all the evidence, that private enterprise could do it better than a formal government.

– And this is why, when Obama urged his “vassal” to go back to the pre-1967 borders, Bibi told him to go frack himself; right?

Bibi has already agreed to do pretty much that; that’s not what got him upset. It was when Obama said that should be the starting point for negotiations. In any case, Bibi has a very very long history of throwing tantrums and then doing whatever the USA tells him. He has no spine at all. Who was it who gave Chevron away in the first place?

Israel is tiny, natural resource poor, and surrounded by enemies. It needs a strong ally in order to maintain its security. THAT is the reality on the ground.

On the contrary, it would be much more secure today had the USA kept its nose out of Israel’s affairs. (Except of course for Nixon’s arms airlift; but the price Israel paid for that was bitter; as Nixon himself told Kissinger, his plan was to save Israel and then use the good will that generated to force it into a bad deal with Egypt.)